Skip to main content
Glama
LGDiMaggio

Predictive Maintenance MCP Server

by LGDiMaggio

generate_diagnostic_report_docx

Generate a structured Word diagnostic report for a stored vibration signal, including statistics, FFT peaks, envelope peaks, bearing frequencies, ISO severity, and diagnosis.

Instructions

    Generate a structured Word (.docx) diagnostic report for a stored signal.

    Requires: ``pip install predictive-maintenance-mcp[docx]``

    ``sections`` is a dict whose keys define what to include (all optional):
      - statistics:           dict  (RMS, Kurtosis, Crest Factor …)
      - fft_peaks:            list  [{frequency, magnitude_db, note}, …]
      - envelope_peaks:       list  [{frequency, magnitude_db, match}, …]
      - bearing_frequencies:  dict  {BPFO, BPFI, BSF, FTF}
      - iso:                  dict  (mapped from assess_severity output)
      - diagnosis:            str   (free-text diagnostic summary)

    Args:
        signal_id: ID of the stored signal (from load_signal); used for
            the report title / filename.
        sections: Content sections to include (see above)
        title: Optional custom report title
        ctx: MCP context

    Returns:
        Dictionary with file_path, file_name, and per-section summary.

    Raises:
        ValueError: If the signal_id is not loaded, or python-docx is
            not installed.
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleNo
sectionsYes
signal_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions prerequisites, return type, and exceptions, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., file storage location, signal modification). Lacks full transparency on state changes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a clear summary, prerequisites, sections explanation, and parameter details. Slightly verbose but front-loaded with the main purpose. Room for slight compaction.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema exists (though not shown), the description adequately explains return values (file_path, file_name, summary). It covers prerequisites and error conditions. Missing details about file storage location, but overall complete for agent use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description thoroughly explains the 'sections' parameter structure, listing allowed keys and their types. It also clarifies 'signal_id' usage and 'title' being optional, adding essential meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it generates a structured Word diagnostic report for a stored signal. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on a composite report that combines multiple analysis types (statistics, FFT, envelope, etc.).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus individual analysis report generators (e.g., generate_fft_report, generate_envelope_report). The description implies it's for comprehensive reports but does not provide when-not or alternative comparisons.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/LGDiMaggio/predictive-maintenance-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server